Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994
10. It is the case of the respondent that the subsequent purchaser is not a necessary party to the proceedings. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasaguru, . In that case, the Supreme Court held thus;
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Vellaya Gounder And Anr. vs A.P. Ramalingam on 5 November, 1997
8. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel Mr. Srinivasan appearing for respondents is Vellaya Gounder and Anr. v. A.P. Ramalingam,1998 (1) L.W 219. The said decision is with regard to Order 22, Rules 3 and 10 of C.P.C and that was a case in which the suit property was admittedly sold by the defendant to the petitioners, who sought to implead them as parties to the proceedings under Order 22, Rule 10 after an ex parte
decree was passed in the suit. During the pendency of the suit there was a transfer of property by way of sale in favour of the petitioners. Since it was a case of devolution of interest by the defendant, on the petitioners, the case squarely falls under Order 22, Rule 10, CPC and there would not be a question of abatement and the petition filed by the petitioners to implead themselves to continue the proceedings was maintainable and legally sustainable and are entitled to be brought on record. The issue involved in the said case mainly was that the application by the petitioners, who are third parties under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. is not maintainable and the application ought to have been filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of C.P.C. Since such an application has not been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant within the time stipulated by law, the suit would stand abated in so far as the deceased defendants are concerned and the Court also decided only as to the issue in that case of devolution of interest, no question of abatement arises and on that ground, the persons, in whose favour, the interest involved were permitted to be impleaded as parties. As already stated, the facts of the present case are totally different than the one cited by the learned counsel.
N.K.T. National Girls Higher Secondary ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 28 August, 1998
In order to sustain his case, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has sought the support of the decisions in Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, and Bakthavatsalam v. Anjapali and Ors., 2001 (1) MLJ 101.
Section 15 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999
In order to sustain his case, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, , Vellaya Gounder and Anr. v. A.P. Ramalingam, 1998 (1) L.W. 219 and Sengamalam v. The Idol of Arulmighu Ranganaha Swami, Srirangam, 1999 (3) L.W. 888.
1